DA concedes; fails to have High Court hearing postponed

Drewan Baird. Oudtshoorn. 8 September 2013. 08h08. A Senior Counsel at the Cape Bar, completely uninvolved with this Oudtshoorn matter, commented Saturday afternoon on the story below:

“Congratulations on a well-written and entertaining piece, and the unwavering lack of partisanship it displays.

“The DA ploy is shocking indeed, but sadly it is wide-spread and seemingly knows no political boundaries.

“From a lawyer’s perspective I’m intrigued by the invidious position in which poor Bergström found himself. As a member of the Bar he undoubtedly held a proper brief, but it seems to me that he may have been wholly undermined by the ambivalence of his lay client! The abiding question is however this: should this application have been brought at all?

“Speaking of which, aren’t you a bit concerned by the alacrity with which the municipalities generally rush to litigation? And in particular the DA at every level? At times one wonders whether its advisers had bothered to think an issue through.

“Keep up the vigilance!”

Drewan Baird. Oudtshoorn. 7 September 2013. 11h45. Following on some severe legal correspondence on Thursday, when O!O first announced “breaking news pending – embargoed”, and Friday morning, inflamed arguments by DA Counsel David Borgström before Mr Justice Le Grange Friday afternoon came to nothing as the matter Stoffels v Van Wyk and others is now confirmed set down for hearing on Tuesday.

But MacPherson previously told Council that Oudtshoorn had no organogram; no asset register; no external audit committee – lies apparently come naturally to this political “chameleon”… my current choice of words guided by my fear of MacPherson’s temper, ego, and fists.

And Bredell told the media after the Special Council Meeting of Wednesday that he was to have a chat with the Judge: “Ek gaan ‘n gesprek voer met die regter in die saak…”

I happened to have heard a Senior Counsel gasp at this fatuity. Fatuity: something that comes naturally to functionaries of a certain ilk.

Yesterday Borgström continued not to represent the DA, after some Monty Pythonesque pastiche, in failing to secure a critical postponement for the client he does not represent.

Borgström must be… very good. I wonder: If he had succeeded, would he also have been unsuccessful, as he was yesterday, as he would have succeeded on behalf of a client he does not represent…

Stripped of all the legal bling, the crux of the entire matter is this: The DA desperately wanted a Council Meeting before the Stoffels matter was heard – because the DA wants you, the ratepayer, to pay its legal costs yet again!

But the DA had been effectively thwarted. And Oudtshoorn’s ratepayers should be very thankful that the DA was indeed foiled.

Hot on the heels of the fraudulent “settlement” of Pierre Nel v Oudtshoorn Municipality – a “Constitutional Court Settlement” no less (!) – the DA, having forced the Speaker to approach the High Court about the DA’s patently illegal attempt at a political coup on May 31, also wanted to withdraw this second case and settle the cost with itself in Council!

Realise, my longsuffering readers, if you will, that the DA, even while NOT in control of Council, has now twice attempted – unsuccessfully, the gods be praised – to con ratepayers into paying legal expense for the DA, or functionaries of the DA.

And the DA has absolutely no scruples when it comes to using taxpayer money for its own benefit.

Listen to the evidence of Jac Bekker, now Oudtshoorn’s DA MP, in the disciplinary hearing of the Eden Municipal Manager, Godfrey Louw, some years ago:

At the time Bekker was an Eden Councillor and Mayco Member for Finance. After this outrage the DA promoted Bekker!

Ye gods and faeries!

After Louw’s conviction – confirmed on appeal when the sanction was altered because it was accepted that he had acted under enormous DA pressure – he unsuccessfully petitioned to have his legal costs settled.

But the self-same DA stepped in, and used its Council majority to have the municipality pay not only the DA’s cost of the High Court application, but also Louw’s personal legal cost! All out of municipal coffers!

That any ratepayer in Oudtshoorn can wish for a DA government flabbergasts me. What am I saying, it discombobulates me.

I personally told a DA functionary in chambers on August 27, to go tell his masters that they are now dealing with a municipality run by people who would not be bullied and who would not be run scared of the DA’s well-known bullying tactics.

O, it must be said that the entire exercise has already taken the shape of a DA public relations campaign, what with the merits of Stoffels v Van Wyk and others not particularly suiting the DA… The DA is now calling for the Speaker or Mills to be held responsible for costs.

Dis ‘n ou laai van die DA daai – koste in persoonlike hoedanigheid.

What makes the current Oudtshoorn administration superior to previous ones?

This: the current Oudtshoorn administration avails itself of excellent legal and management and strategic advice.

The last time a DA administration was offered FREE and GRATIS advice, from willing and able local business, then Executive Mayor Diane de Jager snubbed it.

The current battle is waged on a level battleground: The South African legal milieu.

There currently is a clear winner and a clear loser. A blind man can see it over the radio.